supplier-scar

name	supplier-scar
description	Supplier Corrective Action Request (SCAR) — escalate a supplier non-conformance to a formal corrective action request, define response requirements, evaluate the supplier's 8D response, and verify effectiveness. Use when an NCR escalates to a SCAR, when a supplier delivers repeated non-conformances, or when a field failure is traced to a supplier. Covers ISO 9001 §8.4 and IATF 16949 §8.4.1.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"RBraga01","version":"1.1","iso-9001":"8.4, 10.2","iatf-16949":"8.4.1, 10.2.3","domain":"quality-engineering","subdomain":"supplier-quality","industries":"automotive,electronics,aerospace,medical,general","status":"approved","created":"2026-06-06","last_updated":"2026-06-06","updated_by":"migmcc","reviewed_by":"RBraga01","standard_edition":"ISO 9001:2015 §8.4 / IATF 16949:2016 §8.4.1"}

Supplier Corrective Action Request (SCAR)

When to use

Use this skill when:

• A supplier NCR requires a formal corrective action (beyond simple return/replacement)
• A supplier has delivered the same non-conformance twice or more
• A non-conformance has caused a production line stoppage, customer complaint, or field failure
• A supplier's quality performance score falls below the defined threshold
• An OEM customer issues a concern that is traced to a sub-supplier
• Preparing a SCAR, evaluating a supplier's 8D response, or conducting an effectiveness review

Prerequisites

• Non-conformance documented (NCR or equivalent) with: part number, description, quantity, measured evidence
• Supplier code, contact name, and corrective action coordinator identified
• SCAR response timeline agreed (typically 24h for D3, 30 days for full 8D)
• Historical data: previous SCARs, PPM trend, quality score for this supplier

Workflow

Step 1 — Escalation criteria: when does an NCR become a SCAR?

Issue a SCAR when any of the following conditions are met:

Trigger	Description
Severity — Critical	Non-conformance affects safety, regulatory compliance, or field function
Severity — Customer impact	Non-conformance reached the end customer or caused a production line stop
Recurrence	Same defect or same part rejected for the second time within 12 months
Volume	Rejection of an entire lot or >5% of a delivery
Systemic risk	Evidence that the supplier's process or system is inadequate (missing controls, no inspection, operator error on SC characteristic)
Customer escalation	An OEM customer has issued a concern traceable to this supplier

Do NOT issue a SCAR for every NCR — use NCR + return for minor first-occurrence issues and reserve SCAR for systemic or high-risk situations.

---

Step 2 — Write the SCAR

The SCAR document must contain:

Header:

• SCAR number (unique, traceable)
• Date issued
• Supplier name, supplier code, contact person
• Issued by (supplier quality engineer name)

Non-conformance description:

• Part number and revision
• Delivery reference (PO number, lot number, delivery note)
• Quantity delivered / quantity non-conforming / % affected
• Defect description in objective-evidence language (measured values vs. specification — not opinions)
• Customer impact (if applicable): production stop, customer complaint, field return
• Reference to the NCR (attach or link)

Response requirements: Specify exactly what the supplier must provide and by when:

Deliverable	Typical deadline
D3 Immediate Containment Action (ICA)	24–48 hours
D4 Root Cause (occurrence AND escape)	7–14 days
D5–D6 Permanent Corrective Actions with evidence	30 days
D7 Systemic prevention (PFMEA, CP, WI updates)	30 days
Full 8D report	30 days

Always require TWO root causes: why the defect was produced (occurrence) AND why it was not detected (escape).

Containment verification: State that the supplier must confirm:

• All suspect stock at their facility has been identified and quarantined
• All stock in transit has been recalled or placed on hold
• All stock at your facility has been segregated (include quantity)
• A containment verification plan is in place before any further shipments are accepted

---

Step 3 — Evaluate the supplier's 8D response

Use the 8D Evaluator methodology (skill: 8d-problem-solving) to review the supplier's response. Focus on the most common SCAR-specific failures:

D3 — Containment:

• Is the containment in PAST TENSE? (If it says "we will inspect going forward" — reject)
• Does it cover all locations (supplier, transit, your facility, customer)?
• Is there a verification result (quantity sorted, quantity rejected, quantity cleared)?

D4 — Root cause:

• Are BOTH causes identified: occurrence (why produced) AND escape (why not caught)?
• Is the root cause supported by evidence, or is it opinion?
• Reject: "human error", "operator oversight", "customer changed specs" — always ask why it was possible
• Verify: if the supplier claims "operator error", ask why the error was not detected by the control plan

D5 — Permanent corrective action:

• Does the PCA directly address the confirmed root cause?
• Is "retrain the operator" the only action? If so, reject — training is not a systemic fix
• Is there a poka-yoke or process change that makes the defect impossible or immediately detectable?

D7 — Systemic prevention:

• Has the PFMEA been updated to reflect the failure mode and new controls?
• Has the Action Priority (AP) been revised in the PFMEA after verified corrective action? The revised AP must be lower than the original or documented with justification — AP revision is only valid after D6 effectiveness is confirmed, not at planning stage.
• Has the Control Plan been updated?
• Have Work Instructions been updated?
• Has horizontal deployment been considered (same process at other lines/plants)?

D6 — Verification:

• Is there production data showing the PCA is effective?
• What quantity was run? Over what period?
• What is the measured improvement (before/after comparison)?

---

Step 4 — Issue a SCAR response rejection

If the supplier's 8D response does not meet the gate criteria, reject it formally:

Rejection notice must specify:

• Which discipline(s) failed and why (specific, not generic)
• What is required in the revised response
• Revised deadline for resubmission

Do not accept a response that:

• Has no evidence of D3 completion (only a plan)
• States "human error" as the final root cause without systemic analysis
• Lists only training as the PCA
• Has no PFMEA or CP update in D7
• Shows no production data in D6

---

Step 5 — Effectiveness verification

30–90 days after PCA implementation, verify that the corrective action is effective:

Methods:

• Monitor incoming quality data: zero recurrence of the same defect in the next X deliveries
• Review updated PFMEA and Control Plan (request current revision, verify D4 failure mode is addressed)
• On-site verification: audit the specific process step where the defect occurred (use VDA 6.3 P6 questions for that step)
• Request production data showing Cpk improvement on the relevant characteristic

Close the SCAR when:

• Zero recurrence of the same non-conformance for the agreed monitoring period (typically 3–6 months)
• Updated PFMEA, CP, and WI documents received and verified
• Effectiveness data reviewed and accepted

If recurrence occurs during monitoring:

• Escalate to supplier management (not just quality coordinator)
• Consider: production stop, new supplier qualification, customer notification
• Issue a new SCAR referencing the previous one as evidence of systemic failure

---

Step 6 — Supplier performance tracking

Link every SCAR to the supplier's quality performance record:

• PPM trend (Parts Per Million non-conforming)
• SCAR open count and average response time
• Closure rate (closed on time vs. overdue)
• Recurrence rate (same defect within 12 months of a previous SCAR)

Suppliers with repeated SCARs or recurrences should be placed on:

• Controlled shipping — every delivery inspected before acceptance (in automotive: CS1 = supplier-managed 100% sort; CS2 = customer-managed sort at supplier's cost)
• Supplier improvement plan — formal APQP-style corrective programme
• Qualification review — potential re-qualification or replacement

Warranty cost recovery / debit note risk: In automotive OEM supply chains, SCARs that result in field failures or warranty claims can trigger financial recovery. The OEM issues a warranty debit note to the Tier 1, who cascades it to the responsible sub-supplier via SCAR. Each SCAR must therefore document whether the non-conformance caused any field or warranty cost — this determines whether cost recovery applies. A SCAR without this assessment is incomplete for OEM reporting purposes. If warranty cost recovery is raised, escalate immediately to commercial and legal before responding to the OEM.

---

Validation criteria

A SCAR is closed when:

• Full 8D submitted with both root causes confirmed (occurrence AND escape)
• Permanent corrective action verified with production data (D6)
• PFMEA, Control Plan, and Work Instructions updated and received (D7)
• No recurrence of the same non-conformance during the agreed monitoring period
• Closure signed off by Supplier Quality Engineer and documented in the supplier record

Common mistakes

• Issuing a SCAR for every NCR — dilutes the severity signal; suppliers stop taking SCARs seriously
• Accepting a D3 response that is a plan ("we will inspect") rather than a completed action
• Closing the SCAR when the 8D is submitted rather than when effectiveness is verified
• Accepting "human error" or "operator training" without requiring a systemic root cause
• Not updating the supplier performance record — next engineer doesn't know the history
• Allowing the SCAR to stay open indefinitely with no escalation — sets the precedent that deadlines are negotiable

Output Format

At the start of each use, ask the user:

"How would you like to receive the output? A — Structured Markdown (formatted tables and sections, ready to copy) B — Plain tables (simplified structure for Excel or Word) C — Narrative report (flowing text for a formal document or email)

Default: A."

Adapt all output sections to the chosen format. If the platform or session context already defines a format preference, skip this question.

Changelog

Version	Date	Author	Change
1.0	2026-06-06	@RBraga01	Initial release
1.1	2026-06-06	@migmcc	Added AP revision check in D7 evaluation; added warranty cost recovery / debit note risk in Step 6; added CS1/CS2 controlled shipping reference